Trust and Rationality: Shifting Normative Analyses of Risks Involving Other People Versus Nature

Abstract

Trust is both essential for social interactions to succeed yet is also demonstrably irrational. We address this theoretical paradox by examining the meaning of “rationality” surrounding trust. Emerging research shows that people are willing to accept more risk when trusting other people, including strangers, than they are in bets against nature, such as a lottery. We ask why people display this difference in risk taking. In a review of ongoing research, and specific descriptions of two studies, we explore how poorly normative analyses based on “individual” or “consequentialistic” definitions of rationality anticipate rates of trust. Instead, trust is better predicted by a normative analysis also including concerns more social in nature, a sense of how people believe they should act, regardless of consequence, when dealing with others. Indeed, the very meaning people assign to the word “should” changes between non-social gambles and trust decisions. For non-social gambles, what one “should” do is based on beliefs of what is intelligent, objective, and logical to do. In trust, what people “should” do blends in a more social definition also emphasizing social appropriateness, politeness, and respect. These added meanings explain a greater willingness to take risks on other people.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 24 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.